Protecting Women from HIV: Docs Hopeful About Microbicides
By Rebecca Vesely (Scientific American) 1 December 2008: Despite disappointing study results, scientists haven't given up on creating an effective way for women to protect themselves against HIV
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=microbicides-docs-still-hopeful&print=true
Antiretroviral (ARV) drugs have transformed HIV infection from a death
sentence to a manageable chronic illness for millions worldwide. Now,
scientists are testing whether ARVs can be used as microbicides, taken
orally or applied vaginally as a gel or foam to prevent the
transmission of the AIDS-causing human immunodeficiency virus.
If ARVs are proved as effective as microbicides, they have the
potential to dramatically curb HIV infection rates. This is especially
true in sub-Saharan Africa where women, who comprise nearly 61 percent
of the adults living with HIV there, are eager for products besides
condoms that they can use to protect themselves against the
disease.
"I think it is very exciting to be integrating microbicides with drugs
that have proven to work for treatment," says Roberta Black, chief of
the Microbicide Research Branch at the National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Disease (NIAID) in Bethesda, Md. "This really
jump-starts research efforts."
Microbicide research is at a crossroads as scientists begin testing the
next generation of these drugs in the wake of a series of high-profile
failures, including three late-stage clinical trials that were halted
in the past year because the tested drug was found to be ineffective
and, in one case, actually raised the risk of HIV transmission.
The latter trial, involving nearly 1,400 women in Durban, South Africa;
Kampala, Uganda; Cotonou, Benin; Chennai, India; and Karnataka, India,
was stopped last year when researchers realized the microbicide gel,
made up of cellulose sulfate, not only failed to prevent HIV infection,
but upped participants' risk of acquiring the virus. Forty-one women
contracted HIV during the trial—25 in the cellulose sulfate gel group
and 16 in the placebo gel group.
Carraguard, a seaweed-based microbicide tested by the Population
Council, a nonprofit biomedical research group based in New York City,
failed to show efficacy in a study carried out between 2004 and 2007 on
6,200 women. Carraguard is a polyanion, meaning that it carries a
negative electrical charge that attracts HIV, whose surface is
positively charged. The idea was that polyanions could prevent the
virus from attaching to the host cell.
Almost simultaneously, last February in the U.K., the Microbicides
Development Programme at Imperial College London announced that it was
stopping one arm of a trial of another polyanion, PRO-2000, because the
product was unlikely to show any benefit.
Two other compounds that showed early promise—nonoxynol-9 and
Savvy—have also proved lackluster in recent years. Both are detergents,
common agents used in spermicides, that disrupt HIV in test tubes, but
in human microbicide trials they did not stop HIV transmission.
"It's very easy to get depressed," says Polly Harrison, founder and
director of the Alliance for Microbicide Development, a Silver Spring,
Md.–based nonprofit that advocates for the worldwide development of the
products. "But the field has rallied and dusted itself off."
The reason for the rally isARVs. Two classes are in development as
microbicides: entry inhibitors that prevent the virus from attaching to
target cell surfaces or stop it from entering the cell after
attachment, and reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTIs) that block
virus from replicating itself if it succeeds in entering a cell.
Some 40 microbicide products, including those whose active ingredient
are ARVs, are currently in development around the world, according to
the Alliance for Microbicide Development. Of these, 10 products have
been shown to be safe and effective in animal trials and are being
tested in humans in the U.S., Africa and India, according to the Center
for AIDS Programme of Research (CAPRISA) in Congella, South
Africa.
The ARV drug that holds the most promise is tenofovir, an RTI
manufactured under the brand name Viread by Gilead Sciences. It is best
known as the combination therapy pill, Truvada. The U.S. National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and CAPRISA are set to conduct separate
human trials of oral and topical tenofovir. NIH is currently recruiting
up to 4,200 high-risk women (it hasn't yet said where) to test the gel
and pill forms in a two-year trial set to begin in July. The CAPRISA
trial of some 1,000 high-risk South African women began in May 2007 and
is set to run through the end of next year.
There are about six ARV clinical trials underway in the United States,
Africa and India. Among other drugs being tested: Dapivirine and
Maraviroc, an RTI and an entry inhibitor, respectively. The
International Partnership for Microbicides, a nonprofit drug
development group in Silver Springs, Md., is conducting trials on
Dapivirine gels and vaginal rings — thin, transparent rings inserted
into the vagina that release medications over a month or more. (Vaginal
rings are are already available as birth control, such as the product
NuvaRing.)
The Partnership's CEO, microbiologist Zeda Rosenberg, says ARVs are
promising because they last longer in the body than the compounds used
in previous microbicides. The idea is that women could apply an ARV
microbicide gel once a day or less and it would still be effective in
preventing HIV transmission during a sexual encounter within 12 to 24
hours. To date, the gels tested had to be applied just before
sex.
"Early-generation microbicides were coitally dependent, meaning they
had to be used just prior to sex," Rosenberg says.
Divorcing microbicide use from sexual activity could help researchers
sort out ineffective products from those that simply aren't being used
properly by trial participants. "You cannot watch people apply vaginal
microbicide right before they have sex," Harrison says.
They can, however, supervise application in the clinic on a daily basis
if the product is longer lasting. A crucial recent development has been
production of a gel out of ARVs that could be applied once a day and
retains effectiveness regardless of climate. The gels also need to be
safe. Some earlier microbicides caused vaginal inflammation. So far,
two promising tenofovir gels have been produced, Rosenberg says.
In September, the Contraceptive Research and Development program
(CONRAD) in Arlington, Va., a not-for-profit drug research organization
affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical School received a five-year,
$100-million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) to test a tenofovir gel, develop new biomarkers (which tell
researchers that disease is present so they know if a preventative
measure worked to block transmission), and refine mouse modeling for
microbicides, which, like most other drugs, are tested on mice and
other animals before human trials. But many researchers say these need
to be improved.
"Currently there are no markers or models that allow us to predict the
safety and efficacy of a microbicide candidate with accuracy," says
Henry Gabelnick, executive director of CONRAD. Some scientists are
concerned that using ARVs for prevention could increase the spread of
HIV resistance, because their use might boost transmission of naturally
resistant variants of the disease. For instance, the use of the ARV
drug nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission carries the
risk of promoting drug-resistant virus.
It's unknown whether topically applied ARVs used in prevention would
enter the human bloodstream at levels so that if a person does contract
HIV, that same ARV would be useless in fighting the disease. There is
concern that using ARVs for prevention could drive up human resistance
to these medications, in a similar way that using antibiotics to fight
common colds can lead to their ineffectiveness in fighting bacterial
infections later. "This issue needs to be studied carefully in both
nonhuman primates and humans before large-scale clinical trials are
commenced," wrote 15 prominent U.S. and Canadian AIDS researchers in a
paper published in the July 25 issue of Science.
In the harshly worded article, the researchers called for "some serious
soul searching within the microbicide field," including better
management and collaboration and more attention paid to underlying
science, such as more rigorous testing on animals and trying out a
variety of molecules that attack HIV at different points in the
replication cycle of the virus in stead of focusing on just one
strategy.
"We're still very hopeful that an effective microbicide will come out
of this," says Robert Grant, lead author of the article and an
immunologist at the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology at
the University of California, San Francisco. "At this stage, I think we
should keep as many options open as possible. We do not have a proven
concept."
He warns that it would be a mistake for researchers to invest all of
their time and resources into ARVs, given that "It's not precisely
known whether ARVs will work for prevention."
To date, no microbicide has worked successfully to prevent the spread
of HIV. But, like efforts to develop an HIV vaccine, hope keeps
researchers trying and donors giving, says Anna Forbes, deputy director
of the Global Campaign for Microbicides, a Washington, D.C.–based
coalition of 300 nongovernmental organizations working on the issue.
"It would change the landscape considerably for women," Forbes says.
"Think about the difference the Pill made in a decade. Microbicides
have that same potential."

